Standing Committee F

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Enforcement of certain offences relating to under-age drinking

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 135, in 33, page 25, leave out lines 5 to 8.--[Mr. Blunt.]

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 47, in page 25, line 17, at end add—
`(4) A constable or an inspector of weights and measures may only request that a person under eighteen buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor, or send such a person to buy such liquor, where that constable or inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under section 169A or 169B of the Licensing Act 1964 has been committed on the premises in question within the preceding six months.'.
 No. 108, in page 25, line 17, at end insert— 
`( ) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance— 
 (a) about requests made by constables and inspectors to persons under 18 in accordance with this section; 
 (b) about the manner in which purchases and attempted purchases are to be made under this section; 
 (c) with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with the operation of this section.'.

Crispin Blunt: I have made the point of principle about duty which concerns me. Amendment No. 135 is a probing amendment to ask the Minister whether omitting new section 169I from the Weights and Measures Act 1985 would affect the wider details and whether it would have to be replaced with another form of words.
 I am also concerned about the balance between what the police should be doing and what weights and measures authorities should be doing. The weights and measures authorities already check whether people are being swindled by being sold less than is stated, and cover a range of other issues, but the sale of alcohol to under 18-year-olds is a criminal offence and I wonder whether it is appropriate for local authorities to have a duty to enforce the law on that. Should not that duty be exclusively for the police? 
 I support amendments Nos. 47 and 108, particularly amendment No. 47, which deals with the concern addressed in my amendment that there should be evidence of the activity before children under the age of 18 are sent into pubs or off licences as agents provocateurs to try to trap people into selling them alcohol to enable a prosecution to be sustained. We do not want the provision to be officiously and zealously enforced so that law-abiding licensees are trapped by the authorities, whether the police or local authorities. 
 I support amendment No. 108, because it is important to have clear guidance on how the process will work, and I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have raised.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend has set the scene, and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister responds to amendment No. 135.
 The purpose of amendment No. 47 is to target the power to allow more test purchasing than at present. If it is thought that young people are buying alcohol under age and the pub or off licence is not asking for proof of age or attempting to verify the age, test purchasing should be possible to ensure that those licensees are dealt with firmly. There is no dispute about that, and amendment No. 47 would require that there had been at least reasonable grounds to believe that the offence of selling to someone under age or permitting that to happen had occurred before the test purchasers were sent in to do their work. I would be grateful if the Minister considered targeting and answered that point. 
 Amendment No. 108 deals with the Government setting out guidance on the use of underage people as test purchasers. Although we would all accept that the possibility of test purchasing should exist where there is a targeted reason for it, no one would be happy if it reached the point to which my hon. Friend referred, which was close to that of an agent provocateur. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that this provision will not be a licence to dress youngsters to look much older than they are, to allow them to use forged identity documents and to show cards similar to proof of age cards. Such an approach would be worrying, particularly as some of the premises where underage purchasing is allowed are not very desirable. Do we want to send young people into undesirable premises dressed to look much older than they really are, perhaps supplied with forgeries or documents which resemble proof of age cards? Those concerns were expressed when the Licensing (Young Persons) Bill was going through the House. At that stage some assurance was given. Although test purchasing was not included in the Bill which was passed, it was included in the earlier Bill, which was not. Could the Minister flesh out exactly what he has in mind?

Simon Hughes: I did not have the opportunity to make my first point, which concerns making legislation easier to manage, when we were debating clause 19. We are adding subsections, in this case subsection 169I, to a Bill which is already the Licensing Act 1964. In clause 19 there were many pages of subsections. I ask that we try to avoid having seven pages of the same clause all subdivided, having been added to and subtracted from. That is not manageable.
 I share the view of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about duties. I have made this point throughout the all-too-many years since I first came here. When we impose duties we should ensure the capacity of the person on whom the duty is imposed to carry it out. There should be a mechanism to send a little electric shock through Members of Parliament every time they are about to pass legislation imposing a duty on someone without ensuring that the resources— 
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke) rose—

Simon Hughes: I shall give way in a second. We impose duties on local authorities almost every month of the year without asking whether they have the necessary resources, personnel or ability. The poor people on the receiving end say, ``For heaven's sake, spare us.'' The education service is the most obvious example. The head teacher of the school where I am the chair of governors keeps saying, ``Spare us from yet another obligation for which we may not have the resources.'' I would be grateful if the Minister could guarantee that all the so-called local weights and measures authorities will have the capacity to comply with the duty. Does he want to intervene to tell me that that is absolutely the case?
Mr. Clarke indicated dissent.

Simon Hughes: As so often in life, the moment has clearly passed.
 It is rather 19th century—or certainly 20th rather than 21st century—for there to be a local weights and measures authority. I realise that we are amending earlier legislation, but we are in danger of having a local authority, a local education authority and a local weights and measures authority, which actually describe functions of the same body; they are the same people. I am keen to try to clarify their functions. My understanding is that they are trading standards officers. I sense the magnitude of professional support for that view. If that is the case, we should probably call those people trading standards officers. I understand that we may be under an obligation, because that is what we have always called them. 
 I want to pick up the other two points made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). When I was a health spokesman for my party, I supported a proposal to extend the law so that test purchases, which have been possible for a long time for cigarettes, could be carried out properly in association with the police or trading standards officers, allowing an underage youngster to go into a newsagent to discover whether the owner is flogging cigarettes to kids, thus enabling a prosecution to be brought against him. There must be a mechanism by which one can collect the evidence from somebody who will be willing to stand by it. The danger of relying on illegal drinkers is that they may be embarrassed and not go through with it. 
 I support the proposal that it should be possible to carry out test purchasing. Although I understand the concern that prompted the hon. Gentleman to table amendment No. 47, I do not entirely agree with him. If one only ever acted on the basis of a suspicion, one could never undertake general testing across a local authority area. It is sometimes necessary to have the power to do a sample test—using, say, 10 different kinds of pubs at different times of day in different areas of Southwark—to provide a random sample of how commonly offences take place. On balance, I support the power unamended owing to the need to be able to do that. The merit of amendment No. 108 is that it would provide the scope for guidance or back-up direction to ensure that the power is not abused. In my experience, such powers have not been abused and have been used infrequently. They are normally used where there has been a complaint or a series of complaints that kids have been buying cigarettes from a newsagent. It is even more important to be able to deal with that in respect of alcohol. 
 Probably every single person in the Room—including members of the Committee, Officers of the House, civil servants and visitors—has played the game of trying to get an illegal drink or two before reaching the age of 18. [HON. MEMBERS: ``Oh.''] Methinks my colleagues protest too much. I was not even referring to the leader of the Conservative party—who did it all the time according to his own reminiscences—but speaking for myself.

Jackie Ballard: Only you can do that.

Simon Hughes: Indeed.
 It was part of school life to go to places that were out of bounds and where one could buy cigarettes and drink. I shall not mention the third thing, but that was available too, if one looked in the right place. It probably had more attraction than the other two for some people.

Charles Clarke: What?

Jackie Ballard: Sex.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend is helpful to the Minister, who is clearly innocent of such matters and must have had a delayed upbringing. In the days when the Minister was president of Cambridge students union and I was a mere college union president, sex was very much on the agenda of our student campaigning in terms of liberation and equality.

Roger Gale: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that we should send agents provocateurs into the establishments to which he appears to be referring.

Simon Hughes: I am aware that I must resist getting carried away.
 This is a perfectly proper power that needs to be used. It has been beneficially applied in relation to underage tobacco sales, and I believe that it also applies to solvents, which can be highly dangerous and, indeed, fatal. I have had constituency experience of that. 
 To end on a serious note, the Minister and I, together with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), have been recording a programme about crime, particularly in Kent. If we are to reduce the amount of addiction to and abuse of alcohol by people who are the under the lawful age for purchasing it, it is important that pubs, supermarkets, shops and off licences do not get away with regularly selling alcohol to those people. 
 There must be a draconian regime or groups of youngsters will easily be able to intimidate the owners of isolated off licences or newsagents. The life of a shopkeeper often consists of doing valuable community service, but getting a tremendous amount of grief from people who are trying to get him or her to act illegally in relation to tobacco, alcohol, fireworks or solvents. The law must be tough and clear, so I am happy that there should be a mechanism for testing it and dealing severely with lawbreakers. We shall quickly eliminate most abuse if shopkeepers know that that is the regime. They break the law for personal profit, but that causes considerable harm and loss to young people who purchase their goods.

Charles Clarke: I understand the general points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in relation to the consolidation and codification of legislation. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are sympathetic, but we must create a suitable process. Forthcoming licensing reform, which will overhaul the Licensing Act 1964, will complement the Bill. Licensing law will be recast in response to the approach that we set out in the White Paper. We shall have an opportunity to address his concerns when those proposals are placed before the House. However, I also appreciate his general points about the way in which the law is made.
 Amendment No. 108 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police and trading standards officers concerning the use of children to make test purchases, the conduct of test-purchase operations and best practice. I assure both the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the Committee that we consider appropriate central guidance of the type that he envisages to be both necessary and worth while, but the participation of organisations directly involved in the area is also important. 
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey remarked that test-purchasing operations are mounted in relation not only to alcohol but to cigarettes, videos, solvents and fireworks. That technique is appropriate, but guidance should come not only from the Secretary of State but from organisations that are experienced in such operations. The Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards—LACOTS—currently issues such guidance, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Association of Chief Police Officers are involved in its preparation. 
 The best practice guide on test purchasing, which is currently being revised, was issued in November 1995. It will be further revised when the Bill becomes law. We accept the need for central guidance, but we do not accept either that the Secretary of State should issue it or that it should be set in statute. It is important that local authority bodies, the DETR and the police are directly involved in the process. Given that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will be prepared to reconsider amendment No. 108. 
 Amendment No. 135 concerns the important issue of duty. Test purchasing is necessarily part of the duty of trading standards officers because the defences that clause 33 provides will be available only when they are acting in the course of their duty. If they are not acting in the course of their duty, the various defences set out in clause 33 will not apply, which is why we have the closing words of subsections (1A) and (2) of new section 169A. Of course, we do not want police and trading standards officers to send young people to buy alcohol at all times, but only when they are performing their duty. I must emphasise that there is no intention to entrap people selling alcohol. Current practice involves young people who are under 18 with genuine identification that they reveal on demand. 
 It is also worth having on the agenda the provisions of the current Act. Section 169A is a reformulation of an existing offence under the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000, which came into force on 23 January this year. The Act was the product of a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), and his reformulation was warmly welcomed by both Houses. The Act had wholehearted cross-party support and made it an offence for any person to sell alcohol to a minor on licensed premises. 
 Before the reformulation, a loophole in the 1964 Act allowed some workers on licensed premises to evade prosecution when they sold alcohol to children. Section 169B makes it an offence for any person with the authority to prevent the sale of alcohol to a minor to permit such a sale on licensed premises. That is why new section 169I(1) states that it is the duty of every trading standards officer to enforce the provisions. 
 I shall come in a second to test purchasing. I have tried to explain why the word ``duty'' is in the Bill. When I almost intervened earlier, but then declined to do so, I was wondering whether the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was in favour of various forms of cruel and unusual punishment for Members of Parliament who do silly things. I understand the point about not referring to a duty without having the capacity to deal with the implications of the duty, and we have tried to take that into account after consultation with various organisations. Does the hon. Member for Reigate wish to raise any matters before I go on to amendment No. 47?

Crispin Blunt: No. I understand the Minister's explanation of why the word ``duty'' is in the clause. He invited my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire not to press amendment No. 108 about guidelines. I shall listen carefully to what he has to say about amendment No. 47, because it concerns whether the power will be used officiously. However, if ``duty'' is used in the traditional sense, that should not happen. If we are not to have guidelines, there needs to be some limitation, which amendment No. 47 would provide.

Charles Clarke: I understand the point about officious use. I reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. We have experience in test purchasing in relation to other products and the reason to involve the local authority, a professional body, is to ensure that such a power will not be used officiously.

Crispin Blunt: That the local authority will be involved does not particularly reassure me. Let us consider, for example, the recent prosecution of the greengrocer in the north-east. Numerous other cases have been outlined in the press of trading standards officers who have been excessive in the use of their powers, especially in areas that overlap with the criminal law. Will the Minister consider criminal versus civil law?

Charles Clarke: Perhaps I was not clear. The hon. Gentleman's worry is that, by their nature, local authorities want to accrete power, and sometimes use it officiously, so they might not be the best bodies to have the responsibility. I explained earlier that the police and the Government were involved in the process. When dealing with such matters with local government, the Home Secretary will not want the power to be used officiously, so there will be a countervailing power.
 Trading standards officers have a responsibility to enforce the law. It is a matter of judgment as to which side of the line a particular activity goes. It can be argued that the line is the criminal/civil division. I shall find some specific examples to illustrate the point. In the sale of alcohol, it is reasonable to add the power to those of trading standards officers, rather than to require the police to establish a separate, wholly parallel process. That returns us to our discussion about the benefits of building partnerships between different agencies—I know that the hon. Gentleman and I have similar views on this—and the partnership between the police and trading standards is an important part of our approach. 
 Amendment No. 47 concerns test purchasing, which is not a new concept in liquor licensing, as test purchases have been carried out for some time in some areas, but prosecutions have not resulted because of uncertainty about the legality of the operations. However, it has led to the revocation of some liquor licences. Doubts exist because the Licensing Act 1964 makes it an offence for an adult to send a minor into licensed premises for the purpose of obtaining alcohol for consumption off the premises. In addition, it is an offence under section 169C of the Licensing Act 1964 for a minor to buy or attempt to buy alcohol on licensed premises. No exceptions to those offences exist for test purchasing operations, so there is confusion about the legal power. 
 For that reason, the Bill will place test purchasing on a statutory footing in two ways. First, it will provide exemptions to the offences that I have mentioned for the police, trading standards officers and the children involved. However, police and trading standards officers will have that protection only when they are acting in the course of their duty—which returns us to our earlier debate. Secondly, new section 169I(1) confirms that it is among the duties of trading standards officers to act to enforce the provisions relating to the underage provision of alcohol. That is the normal legislative style to bring clarity to the issue. It is not the purpose of that section to place a burden on every trading standards authority to conduct wave after wave of test purchases, although I certainly hope that the protection of children will continue to be a high priority. 
 That is why the provision is important. For the test purchase power to be effective, it is imperative that the enforcement authorities have operational freedom to decide where and when such operations should take place—for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. In practice, enforcement authorities will not attempt to trick the retailer but will deal with genuine identification, as I said earlier. Amendment No. 47 would place an unjustified restriction on the powers needed, because the authorities, before embarking on a test purchase operation, would be obliged to obtain evidence of possible previous offences committed in the target premises, so that they could justify their action in court if any prosecutions were brought following their action. That would create an additional burden that would undermine the purpose of having an effective enforcement measure. 
 I acknowledge that the amendment was tabled to probe the issue. I hope that on the basis of what I have said, the hon. Member for Reigate will withdraw it.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister is misinterpreting the amendment. He said that it would mean that offences or convictions for such behaviour must have occurred. All that it says is:
``where that constable or inspector has reasonable grounds to believe''. 
That is not a huge test. The Minister may have misdirected himself.

Charles Clarke: I did not mean to do that, and I am sorry if I have. Officers would need to demonstrate in court, by hypothesis, that they had reasonable grounds to conduct a test purchasing operation in a particular shop. To show those reasonable grounds, they would have to produce evidence. Reasonable grounds cannot simply be that an off licence was in a particular area or ward, for the sake of argument. Unless I have misunderstood the amendment, it would not constitute reasonable grounds simply to say that a shop was in X ward in Reigate. There would have to be specific reasonable grounds for each retailer subject to a test purchasing operation. That would lead to a separate burden on the trading standards authorities that would undermine the purpose of having an effective enforcement operation.

Simon Hughes: I have a question prompted by that exchange. Is it being considered—it has always struck me as a sensible thing to consider—whether those who run off licences, places where drink and tobacco are sold and where age limits relate to their premises, should be required to have closed circuit television or the like on their premises? From experience, it could work well if those in such shops know that a perpetual record is kept of who has been in and out. It strikes me that, although we would not want to impose that on the retail trade in general, it might be appropriate for those who retail items that involve an age limit, safety or other crime-related issues.

Charles Clarke: We are approaching the matter in two ways. First, the new guidance on CCTV, which we published in February, specifically highlights as one of the three new priorities out-of-town parades that typically include an off licence or betting shop, for example, where there is often a lot of low-level crime of the type that we are discussing, and where people congregate, but which do not have enough money to invest seriously in CCTV as many retail centres involving major chains do. We said in the bidding round that we would give priority to such schemes for exactly that reason.
 Secondly, through our retail crime action team, we are discussing with the industry, including post office sub-postmasters, the range of security devices that we as a Government can encourage in such shops, and what support we can provide. We are developing, although we have not yet brought into the public domain, because the conversations on them have not yet finished, a range of proposals that we hope will help security across the range, and they include CCTV. 
 CCTV could be a matter for licensing justices, who could require an undertaking that it will be used in an off licence in particular circumstances. Many small CCTV systems now available are relatively cheap. That is an interesting approach. 
 I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendment to a vote.

Oliver Heald: The Government should think a little more about the matter. We do not want test purchasing to become a widely used method of dealing with the problem. It should be used sparingly, and it should be targeted. The idea that we should have random testing across large areas is misconceived. At this stage, however, I do not intend to press the point, although we may return to the matter on Report, because we believe that the proposal should be targeted.

Crispin Blunt: I listened to the Minister, and it would be useful if he could give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks so that it is on the record of our discussion that the power is not intended to be used—

Charles Clarke: I am happy to give that assurance. We do not intend as a matter of course to assume that blanket sweeps are the right way to proceed. We believe that the operational decision on how to approach the matter should be taken on operational grounds. I can confirm that it is not part of our game plan to have blanket sweeps for particular circumstances.

Crispin Blunt: That is helpful. I hope that those words will be of guidance to the police and local authorities when they use the powers, if the Bill ever reaches the statute book. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I realise that planning permission may not be granted in every case. However, when planning permission for off licences has been applied for and granted, might conditions be attached with the same sort of jurisdiction as applies to pubs, for example? That would make the permission conditional in time and would involve a reporting back mechanism to determine whether it should continue, and if offences have been committed, the business involved would not be allowed to continue to operate. That applies to pubs. It is a way of keeping in touch with and in control of the licensee. I wonder whether we might do the same for outlets that cause a lot of low-level crime through selling drink.

Charles Clarke: It may interest the Committee to hear that the comprehensive spending review published in July included a cross-cutting review on crime reduction, which I chaired. The report on that, which forms part of the CSR, sets targets for several other Departments for contributing to crime reduction. Our theme is that the problem runs through all parts of society and life and is not the responsibility only of the police. The DETR accepted an obligation to revise its planning guidance to ensure that secure by design was included as an element in planning. We are funding the development of secure by design. A lot of research is being done in that area, and there is a good Association of Chief Police Officers scheme on it.
 We are working further on what secure by design means, and I am discussing with my counterparts in the DETR exactly how we can put the requirement into effect, because there are serious issues involved. We are actively pursuing the possibilities. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Drunkenness or disorder on licensed premises

Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 25, line 22, after 'not', insert `knowingly'.

Roger Gale: With this we will take amendment No. 49, in page 25, line 30, at end insert—
`(2A) It shall be sufficient, for the purposes of proving that all reasonable steps were taken within the meaning of subsection (2), to show that the person became drunk other than on the licensed premises in question, and that no reasonable person would have believed that he was drunken when he entered those licensed premises.'.

Oliver Heald: The amendments are designed to deal with a case in which a person comes into licensed premises appearing sober and it subsequently becomes apparent that he is drunk. The offence that we are discussing is permitting drunkenness or violent conduct on licensed premises. It is well known that alcohol can have a delayed effect, and that some of the cocktails drunk these days can take effect suddenly. We want to provide a defence for licensees in cases in which they will be assumed to have taken all reasonable steps necessary to prevent drunkenness if they can show that a person did not become drunk on their premises through the alcohol that he was served there. In such cases, no reasonable person would have believed that the person was drunk when he entered the premises. The amendment deals with the issue of delayed effect. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's response.

Simon Hughes: The Minister will remember that exactly the same point was made on the Terrorism Bill and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill in the previous Session. It concerns the shift between the burden of evidence and the burden of proof. I would like to probe him, and I support the amendments. One must ensure a degree of personal liability and knowledge. Otherwise a ridiculous burden is placed on a publican, who must constantly judge between people who may be sober, not quite so sober, slightly less sober, beginning to be slightly drunk, more drunk or very drunk. People could start in one category and quickly move to another. One can go from being merry and pleasant to being not quite so merry, more merry and violent, bothersome and riotous.
 Proposed new section 172A(2) would be affected by amendment No. 49. I understand that a publican may be charged with permitting drunkenness. All that must then be proved is that there is some evidence that a person was drunk on the premises. That is a ``how long is a piece of string'' sort of qualification. It is probably not difficult to find a drunken person on any premises containing a significant number of people—one needs only to find a person who looks as if he has been there for a long time. 
 Under the Bill, the burden of proving that the relevant person and any persons employed by him took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness will lie on that person. One has only to put the allegation on the table and it is for the publican, manager or licensee to refute it. I am unhappy with that presumption. I understand the public policy objective of ensuring that landlords keep an orderly house, to use the old phrase, but I would be much happier if, prompted by the amendments, the Minister would look again at the wording, and if he would go further and reconsider the way in which we would have someone convicted. It seems wrong that a conviction should arise because one cannot prove a negative, rather than its being necessary to prove an offence.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us that his legal advice was that knowledge was necessary in order to permit drunkenness or violent, quarrelsome or riotous conduct? It would imply that the knowledge was part of the offence.

Simon Hughes: I think that the Minister will respond to that in a moment. I do not know whether the Licensing Act 1964 includes a definition of the word ``drunk''. I presume that it does not. I presume that it is a matter of evidence and case law. Therefore, it is rendered more open to abuse and variable interpretation by magistrates or others who do not require the qualification of a breath test. We are talking about evidence such as singing and being red in the face.

Crispin Blunt: I want to support the amendment and the tone of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. There will be real concern about how broadly the provision can be interpreted. If there is not a statutory definition of drunkenness—plainly, there is not—the wide powers that will be given will provide significant opportunity for prosecutions to occur. We must do better for those in the licensed trade, who will have enormous difficulty in enforcing the provision. It is not fair to impose that on the licensed trade without a set definition of drunkenness.

Charles Clarke: The purpose of the clause is to insert proposed new section 172A into the Licensing Act 1964. It will extend to all staff employed on licensed premises, rather than just the licensee, the responsibility to prevent drunkenness and disorder and not sell or serve alcohol to drunks. Section 174 of the 1964 Act has also been amended so that all staff, rather than just the licensee, would have the right to refuse to admit, or to expel from the licensed premises any person who is drunk, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly. The use of the power will enable all staff to take action to prevent the committing of offences under proposed new section 172A.
 The amendments would qualify that significantly. Amendment No. 50 would mean that the relevant person named in proposed new section 172A could only commit the offence of permitting drunkenness or violent, quarrelsome or riotous conduct to take place in licensed premises if he did so knowingly. Amendment No. 49 would provide a new defence, which relates to proposed new section 172A(2), if he or she could show that the person became drunk other than on licensed premises, or that no reasonable person would have believed him to be drunk when he entered. 
 Amendment No. 50 is answered by the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire on the hon. Member for Southwark and Disorderly—[Laughter.] I abase myself and apologise to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I know that he advises people to run away from burglars, but not, I think, from disorder. 
 The amendment would mean that the offence of ``knowingly'' permitting drunkenness would differ from the offence of permitting drunkenness under section 172. No justification exists for such a distinction because the use of the word ``permit'', in exactly the way to which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred, implies knowledge. The addition of the word ``knowingly'' is therefore unnecessary. 
 It is important to understand that proposed new section 172A does not apply to licensees. The offence in respect of holders of justices' licences is contained in section 172 of the Licensing Act 1964, but it is far older than that. It relates to the point about the definition of drunkenness. Case law on the offence goes back more than 100 years. That case law establishes that to permit implies power to prevent, and, therefore, knowledge that the person is drunk. That is the logical use of language that leads us to suggest that the word ``knowingly'' is not necessary. 
 Proposed new section 172A recognises that it is now not uncommon for pubs to be run by staff who are not holders of justices' licences. Licensees might be absent from the premises, and control might be in the hands of managers or other staff. Alternatively, the spouse of the licensee might be in control. Proposed new section 172A describes a ``relevant person'' as any person who works on the premises in any capacity, whether paid or unpaid, who has the authority to deal with such matters. 
 Amendment No. 49 would weaken the clause. First, the proposed defence would not be available to licensees covered by section 172 of the 1964 Act. A different regime would therefore apply to a manager running a pub who was not actually a licensee. That does not make sense. 
 Secondly, those in the licensed trade have known for more than 100 years that it is unlawful for a drunk to enter licensed premises. When the licensee or manager is aware of the drunk's arrival, his presence constitutes an offence. For example, it would be unlawful to serve a drunken person with a sandwich and black coffee, because his presence alone is an offence; he simply must not be there, and that has always been the case. The licensee and his agents are empowered by the 1964 Act to expel such people, and it is the duty of the police to assist them in doing so. 
 Amendment No. 49 would change the approach to the control of licensed premises; it would be all right to have drunks on the premises as long as they became drunk somewhere else. The law must remain that people who are drunk and disorderly, wherever they became drunk, should not be permitted on licensed premises, and it should be the responsibility of the people operating the licensed premises to keep them out. If they ignore that duty, they should be liable for prosecution. 
 Finally, the additional test that 
``no reasonable person would have believed that he was drunken when he entered those licensed premises'' 
is unnecessary for the reason already given. The offence is one of permitting, which, as I have explained, implies knowledge. 
 The clause is important because the pattern is changing in the way that licences are offered, just as multinational corporations develop. However, we must not allow the change in the structure of the industry to weaken the obligation of the people on the premises, in whatever capacity and whoever they may be, to ensure that drunkenness and disorderly behaviour cannot take place on the premises.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister clarify two points of interpretation in proposed new section 172A(2)? First, are the two parts cumulative for the offence to be committed, so that a person has to be charged before it is proved that he or she is drunk? Secondly, will the burden of proving that all reasonable steps have been taken for preventing drunkenness be a ``beyond reasonable doubt'' or a ``balance of probabilities'' burden—in other words, a civil or a criminal burden? If it is a criminal burden, an unfair obligation may be placed on the defendant.

Charles Clarke: First, the offences are cumulative, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Secondly, the ``all reasonable steps'' test is a criminal test; I am aware that that is tougher, but I defend that on the grounds that our aim is to recognise the changing nature of the industry and the obligation of licensees to ensure that the situation in the premises is properly supervised.

Simon Hughes: I have no problem with the public policy issue, but I ask the Minister to think again about the latter point. It is extremely difficult for a defendant to satisfy a bench or jury that he or she took all reasonable steps beyond reasonable doubt. The police will arrive on the scene later; they will not have been there at the time of the events leading up to their arrival. The alleged drunk—the person who caused the problem—may say, ``No, they did not ask me'', or ``I was only asked once''. The landlord must not only say that he took all reasonable steps but prove it in a way that leaves no doubt at all, although he may be the only person present who is on the side of that argument. It may be that no one else is capable of giving circumstantial or additional evidence. I shall not vote against the clause, but I ask the Minister to take advice and consider whether that measure does not add a level of obligation that is not generally the case in licensing law.

Charles Clarke: I will take further advice, but the public policy issues are important, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, which is why we have adopted our position.

Oliver Heald: I was going to press the Minister to give that assurance about the shifting burden. However, as he gave the assurance, I will say no more. We may want to return to the subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 124, in page 26, line 13, after `servant' insert `or'. 
 No. 125, in page 26, line 14, leave out first `or'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.] 
 Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Power to make travel restriction orders

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 26, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert—
`(a) to consider whether likelihood of reoffending would be realistically minimised by including in the sentence the making of a travel restriction order in relation to the offender.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 160, in page 26, leave out lines 40 to 45 and insert—
`(b) the court shall only impose an order if it considers that it is necessary to prevent the offender from committing further offences of a similar nature.'.
 No. 161, in page 27, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert— 
`(c) the court shall state the reasons for its decision'.
 No. 162, in page 27, line 5, leave out from `custody' to end of line 7. 
 No. 6, in page 27, line 6, after `years', insert— 
`and not more than the same number of years as the sentence of imprisonment to which the offender was previously sentenced'.

Nick Hawkins: We wondered whether it might be helpful to refine the way in which subsection (2)(a) works, and that is what amendment No. 19 seeks to do. Amendment No. 160, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, relates to preventing the committing of further offences. Our amendment, which approaches the same subject in a slightly different way, would require the court
``to consider whether the likelihood of reoffending would be realistically minimised by including in the sentence the making of a travel restriction order in relation to the offender'', 
 and would replace the existing, wider requirement for the court 
``to consider whether it would be appropriate for the sentence for the offence to include the making of a travel restriction order in relation to the offender''. 
We believe that that further refinement might be helpful, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. However, I should point out that we are simply probing this issue.

Jackie Ballard: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 160 to 162 and 6. On Second Reading, we expressed our support for proposals to restrict drug traffickers' freedom to travel, but we gave notice that we would seek to amend the open-ended nature of the restrictions. Like us, the Minister will doubtless have received briefings from Liberty, which questions whether such a restriction is compatible with the European convention on human rights, the freedom of movement and the right to trade in goods and services throughout the European Union. I am sure that he will say that, as with all the other clauses, this one has passed some form of compatibility test. Indeed, the Government are hardly likely to table legislation that they do not believe complies with the European convention on human rights, but that does not guarantee that the clause does indeed comply.
 There is no upper limit to the length of the orders. Although they will apply only to people who have been given prison sentences of four years or more, first-time offenders—as well as those who offend repeatedly—could be included. Amendment No. 160 would replace subsection (2)(b) to make it clear that 
``the court shall only impose an order if it considers that it is necessary to prevent the offender from committing further'' 
drug trafficking offences. A pre-sentence report might well state that, on the balance of probabilities, the offence was a once-only occurrence. Indeed, we might all imagine circumstances in which a person was used as, say, an unknowing mule. Amendment No. 161 would change the balance by requiring the court to 
``state the reasons for its decision'', 
whether or not it decides to impose a travel restriction order. At the moment, the norm is that a travel restriction order should be imposed, and reasons must be given for not imposing one. If our amendment were accepted, reasons would have to be given in either case. 
 Amendment No. 162 would remove the minimum restriction of two years and leave it to the discretion of the court. Amendment No. 6 would set a maximum time limit that is no more than the original prison sentence.

Charles Clarke: This is an important clause and I am glad that the hon. Lady raised those points. It provides a new sentencing option for the courts: a travel restriction order. The reason for it is straightforward. The trade in illegal drugs is an international multi-million pound industry, which, in 1997, was estimated to have a turnover of approximately 8 per cent. of total international trade. That is an extraordinarily large figure, which shows the task that we are wrestling with. We believe that travel restriction orders will make it more difficult for drug traffickers to travel overseas, thereby helping to prevent or disrupt trafficking. That is one of the main objectives of the Government's drugs policy, which commands general support throughout the House.
 The orders will be available when the courts impose a sentence of imprisonment of four years or more for a drug trafficking offence. That threshold has been chosen in accordance with the sentencing guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal to distinguish serious cases. In such cases, the courts will be under a duty to consider making a travel restriction order and if a court decides that a ban is not appropriate, it will be required to give reasons. The period of the order will run from the time of the offender's long-term release from custody--for example, on licence--and will last for a minimum of two years. Courts may also order the surrender of any United Kingdom passport.

Jackie Ballard: I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the rationale for the minimum period of two years.

Charles Clarke: I shall come to that when I deal with the amendments.
 Amendments Nos. 19 and 160 would have a similar effect. We intend the order to add to the range of powers available to the courts to deal with drug trafficking offenders and to be a discretionary measure, subject to the sentencing threshold stated, which was chosen to distinguish serious cases in accordance with Court of Appeal guidance. The effect of the amendments--I accept that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that they are probing amendments--would be to impose on the courts an unreasonable speculative requirement. The Government want the courts to make the judgment set out in subsection (2)(a) in lines 37 to 39--that is, whether a travel restriction order, in all the circumstances of the individual case, is an appropriate sentencing option. That requires a broader sentencing judgment than that suggested by amendments Nos. 19 or 160, both of which would require the court to speculate unreasonably. 
 Similarly, the Government are not suggesting that the mere imposition of a travel restriction order will necessarily prevent reoffending and I do not understand how a court could reasonably be asked to make such an assessment. The phrase ``similar offences'' in amendment No. 160 is too vague. 
 The amendments would also prevent the courts from applying travel restriction orders when they consider that to be an appropriate punitive sanction--I emphasise punitive. Overseas travel is a common prerequisite for drug traffickers and we are discussing international drug-dealing businesses. It is right that the courts should have the option of punishing those who abuse the freedom to travel with an appropriate sanction. The Government believe that for individuals convicted of drug trafficking offences, whose life style involves frequent overseas travel for pleasure or other purposes, the imposition of a travel restriction order may be an effective element in the overall punishment, as well as an appropriate and justifiable way of expressing society's condemnation of their unlawful activities. We do not accept that the conditions set out in amendments Nos. 19 or 160 are appropriate. 
 Amendment No. 6 is technically flawed because ``previously sentenced'' could refer to any previous offence. However, we believe that its broad intention is what the Government envisage in the new sentencing option--an escalator based on the sentence of imprisonment handed down at the same time. The record of our debate today will confirm that intention and the courts will be informed when notified of the introduction of the new power. 
 I cannot accept the amendment because it would unacceptably limit the discretion that we want to give to the courts and could have an adverse impact on the sort of offenders that we want to protect. The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) gave the example of a single mother acting as a mule for a drugs gang. That is a serious offence, but the courts may decide that, in all the circumstances, an appropriate punishment would be a short prison sentence relative to the period of the travel restriction order. The Government do not want such discretion to be limited. 
 Amendment No. 161, as with amendments Nos. 19 and 160, has the clear intention of shifting the presumption of the use of travel restriction orders to only those cases in which the court believes that there is a strong likelihood of similar reoffending that would be prevented by imposition of a travel restriction order. I have explained that this is not the test or the rationale for travel restriction orders that the Government intend. I see no merit in requiring the courts to explain their reasons for making a travel restriction order. If an offender believes that an order was inappropriate in his or her case, the normal appeals mechanism provides a means of redress. 
 Amendment No. 162 seeks to remove the minimum duration for travel restriction orders. Clause 35 stipulates that the new orders will not run for less than two years and I hope that it is self-evident that for those orders to be given a chance to impact on drug trafficking activity, or to represent a meaningful punishment, a sensible minimum period for the prohibition on overseas travel is necessary. 
 Members of the Committee may not be aware that offenders released on licence are already subject to a ban on overseas travel, without the permission of their parole officer, for a set period of the licence. In the case of an offender sentenced to four years' imprisonment, that restriction would currently last for one year. In response to the hon. Lady's question, the reason for the two-year period is that the Government intend that travel restriction orders should be a tougher restriction on overseas travel than already exists under the terms of the parole licence, which would need to be more than one year. That is why we have set two years, which is a sensible and reasonable minimum period.

Jackie Ballard: Will the Minister confirm that the restriction order would be an addition to the one-year restriction on travel under the licence?

Charles Clarke: I was just taking advice on that point. No, it would not be an addition; it would be a parallel restriction. The offender would have one year under parole and an extra year in this situation. With your permission, Mr. Gale, I have dealt with that matter at some length because there will be public interest in the Government's intended application of the order. It was important to place on the record the thinking behind the various aspects of the order. I apologise for taking the Committee's time. I hope that, with those clarifications, hon. Members will consider withdrawing their amendments.

Nick Hawkins: As I said in opening, we were simply seeking to probe. The Minister's comments have been helpful. We in the official Opposition definitely want to crack down on drug traffickers. It may help the Minister and, indeed, the Committee, if I say now that when we deal with clause 37 I do not propose to speak to amendment No. 18. The matters raised in our probing amendment, No. 19, on this clause are similar and the Minister has given us a full and adequate response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: I want briefly to refer to a constituency case that came to my attention. A constituent was convicted of a similar offence, but his job required him to work largely overseas, as part of the motor racing industry. On the face of clause 35 as it now stands, there is absolutely no appeal once the order has been imposed. When my constituent came to see me, I was convinced that he had every intention of being a good citizen. He was extremely remorseful about what he had done. His employment and his future financial success for his family depended on his being able to travel, because that was the nature of the industry in which he worked. I should have hoped, if a travel restriction had been imposed on him in those circumstances, for the capacity for some form of appeal against the travel restriction order, so that he should have the ability to convince a court or the Secretary of State, or simply for some mechanism by which that travel restriction could be changed. If I am correct in believing that there is no way of altering a travel restriction order as it stands on the face of the Bill, would the Minister consider before Report whether there should be some appeal mechanism in such circumstances?

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I support the Government's general public policy intention. There should be a tough regime to deal with people trafficking in drugs who use trafficking and travelling to supply, getting people into addiction and sustaining their addiction, and in doing so making large profits for themselves . We are signed up to the Government's agenda in that respect.
 I should like to ask a question relating not to UK passport holders, but to non-UK passport holders. Do the Government propose, under the Bill or existing legislation, to take powers to deal with people who are not UK passport holders in terms of equally restricting their movements? I ask that question also in the context of the EU-wide discussions in which the Home Secretary has been taking part. There should be the power, at least within the EU, to ensure that someone who has been convicted of drug trafficking in the UK but who is, let us say, a Dutch, Spanish, Italian or Swedish national, is as liable to lose their rights as a UK passport holder. It is entirely unsatisfactory that someone who would be caught in another nation state and brought before its courts cannot be dealt with in an equally severe and rigorous manner in this country. How does the law stand in that respect? Are proposals on the table to ensure that there is a common EU-wide mechanism for dealing with drug traffickers? The issue may go beyond the EU, but it would be encouraging if we could at least get it working within the EU. 
 After the debate on this clause I shall have to leave the Committee. I should have liked to be here, but I have another commitment in the House. That does not undermine my commitment to getting this part of the Bill right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton will fully look after our interests in that respect. I do not want my absence to be taken to mean a lack of interest in the next clauses.

Charles Clarke: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's final remarks. I am aware of his commitment, and I assure him that if I am going to mention him in his absence I shall write to him beforehand.
 With regard to appeal, according to clause 35(2)(a) and (b) it is a matter for the judge to decide how to deal with the situation. If they wish, the person concerned can appeal against that decision through the legal process. I understand the concerns of the motor racing constituent of the hon. Member for Reigate, but a pretty high test is involved. Orders are available only where the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of four years or more for a drug trafficking offence. The threshold was chosen in accordance with sentencing guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal to distinguish serious cases. The individual would have to have been fairly seriously involved. I cannot see how we could raise the threshold much higher, but there will be a right to appeal against the sentence. 
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about passports. A travel restriction order can be made whatever the nationality of the person concerned, and deportation is also an option. Passport confiscation is available in respect only of UK passports, because the passports of foreign nationals, whatever their domicile, remain the property of the issuing Government, not of Her Majesty's Government. 
 However, that does not weaken the force of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He was right to say that we are working hard to get much better EU co-operation on international crime, especially drug trafficking and trafficking in people, and to ensure that the agencies concerned are much more focused on those problems. That is the significance of the work that we have been doing in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which deals with such matters under the aegis of the EU. The Government can legitimately take some credit for trying to advance and accelerate the progress that is being made. I can confirm that EU Governments are engaged in active discussions about the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Simon Hughes: I am encouraged by the Minister's comments. Will he confirm whether it is the Government's objective to secure an EU-wide system that would allow either for penalties to be imposed, following consultation, on behalf of the legal system of one of the other countries, or for the automatic reference back of the foreign national in question by the relevant UK court, which would guarantee further consideration of the matter? I understand that double jeopardy issues may be involved. However, the objective should be to prevent someone from escaping justice in a particular EU national court, and to rein in the various forms of trafficking to which the Minister has referred.

Charles Clarke: I shall not comment on the detail of the hon. Gentleman's question, because to be frank the relevant discussions are being conducted not by me but by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). I am insufficiently familiar with the state of those discussions to comment on the Government's negotiating position in relation to that of other Governments. However, I can confirm that it is our policy goal to work properly in those ways, and I therefore hope that the clause can stand part of the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I hope that it is in order for me to correct the record in respect of a statement that I made on clause 34. In answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey during the stand part debate—and having taken advice on the hoof, as it were—I suggested that the burden of proof was criminal. However, my advisers have double-checked the matter and the offence in question is in fact civil, so the points that were made should reflect that fact, rather than the answer that I gave at the time.

Roger Gale: Happily, that is not a point of order, but it is now a matter of record.
 Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Revocation and suspension of a travel restriction order

Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 28, leave out line 35.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 164, in page 28, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
`(2) The court shall revoke the order unless it considers it is necessary to prevent the offender from committing further similar offences'.
 No. 165, in page 29, line 6, leave out `exceptional'. 
 No. 166, in page 29, line 7, leave out `on compassionate grounds'. 
Jackie Ballard rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Jackie Ballard: It is no reflection on me that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has to leave the Committee at this precise moment.
 The clause deals with the revocation and suspension of travel restriction orders. Both the wording of clause 35 and the Minister's response to amendments to it made it clear that the message to the courts is that travel restriction orders for drug traffickers are expected to be the norm rather than the exception. All of us want to eradicate drug trafficking and other forms of trafficking, but the issue is the duration of a travel restriction order and its impact on an offender's choices and life style on completion of a prison sentence. 
 Amendment No. 163 would delete the phrase 
``after the end of the minimum period''. 
If it were accepted, a first-time offender who received a four-year sentence—in this context, the minimum sentence—could apply for a revocation order before the two-year period was up, two years being the minimum period for which the travel restriction can be imposed. 
 Let us consider the first-time offender who is perhaps the na—ve mule to whom we referred earlier—I do not deny that in such a case an offence has none the less been committed—and who since release has led a blameless life for 18 months and secured a job involving overseas travel. If the amendment were accepted, in circumstances where imprisonment had proved successful in terms of rehabilitation it would be possible for that person to pursue their career by travelling overseas. 
 As it stands, subsection (2) makes it clear to the court that revocation is an exception to the rule. Again, that takes a pessimistic view of the rehabilitative role of a prison sentence. Such a view might reflect the reality of prison life, but it should not be reflected in the aims of the criminal justice system. Amendment No. 164, which would replace subsection (2) with a more positive wording, states: 
 ``The court shall revoke the order unless it considers it is necessary to prevent the offender from committing further similar offences'. 
Looking into my crystal ball, I can imagine that the Minister's response will be similar to his response to clause 35 in respect of a court's judging the likelihood of reoffending. 
 Amendment No. 165 clarifies the circumstances in which suspension can take place by removing the word ``exceptional''. I question how that word is defined. Let us imagine someone who has been served with a four-year travel restriction order, which would mean that he had been a serious offender, who is a United Kingdom citizen both of whose parents live in France—which is not so unusual these days, with free movement throughout the European Union—and who becomes seriously ill during those four years. The first time that the person goes to court to ask for a lifting of the travel restriction order, the court may say, ``Yes, this is an exceptional circumstance involving a seriously ill relative'', but on the second occasion, would that still be an exceptional circumstance? Would the Minister clarify that? 
 Amendment No. 166 would remove the words ``on compassionate grounds'', because if they remain in the Bill, the court will feel that it can lift the restriction order only in the event of serious illness or death, not for work-related reasons. I fully accept that it would not be inclined to lift the restriction order for a holiday, but if as part of someone's work he was asked to attend a conference in Paris, for example, ``compassionate grounds'' would imply to the court that that was not something on which to exercise its discretion—normally, one considers compassion to relate to illness or death, rather than to professional work.

Charles Clarke: The clause sets out the circumstances in which a person who is made the subject of a travel restriction order will be able to apply to the court for suspension or revocation of the order. Those are quite separate provisions and it may help if I explain the distinction.
 Suspension is to cover circumstances where overseas travel is needed for urgent, exceptional, compassionate reasons, whenever that might arise after the travel ban takes effect. The explanatory notes cite the example of the need to travel overseas for urgent medical treatment. Applications for revocation are to cover other circumstances, where the offender wants to apply for the travel restriction to be lifted, such applications to be made after two years in the case of an order made for four years, four years for orders of between four and 10 years duration, and five years in all other cases. Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 deal with applications for temporary suspension, amendments Nos. 163 and 164 to applications for revocation. 
 I shall deal first with amendment No. 164 for brevity, because I dealt with the relevant arguments during debate on the previous clause. I shall not repeat those arguments, but simply urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment once she has had a chance to consider the points that I made. 
 Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 refer to applications for temporary suspension and would weaken the provision for such applications. Both would lessen the test to be applied by the courts when considering applications for suspension of travel restriction orders. That is unacceptable and would risk undermining the orders. An ''essential'' business appointment overseas—such as the example of a conference in Paris cited by the hon. Lady—might be offered as a reason to justify the suspension of the travel restriction order, and indeed there might be such a meeting or conference. However, that could all too easily provide a simple cover for illegal activities. 
 Indeed, if we do not make the sort of distinction that the Government have in mind, there would be little point in having separate suspension and revocation mechanisms. A drug trafficker bent on continuing his illegal trade could simply apply to have the order lifted as required, availing himself of sick relatives or urgent business trips as necessary. Under the lesser tests proposed by the amendments, such circumstances might all be reason to grant suspension of the travel restriction order.

Jackie Ballard: It sounds as though the Minister is suggesting that it will be easier for the courts to determine whether compassionate grounds exist—whether sickness is genuine—than to determine whether there is a genuine work-related reason for going abroad. I should have thought that in most circumstances it would be easier to produce documentary evidence of a work-related need to travel abroad than of the existence of a sick relative.

Charles Clarke: That is true, but sick relatives are less common than business opportunities. I should have great difficulty inventing a sick relative in Paris because I do not have a relative in Paris, let alone a sick one. On the other hand, I should find it quite easy to invent a business event or conference that I needed to attend in Paris—even if the meeting actually took place—and to provide documentation to progress my application. The genuineness of the compassionate ground is much more restrictive, because the circumstances are far narrower. It is possible to invent fully documented activities in respect of business grounds in a wide variety of ways, which might require my presence although the real purpose of the visit was to continue conducting my drug trafficking arrangements. We worded subsection (3) so as to balance the need to respond appropriately in genuine exceptional compassionate circumstances and the desire to operate an effective sentencing regime.
 Amendment No. 163 would remove the notion of the minimum period. If the amendment were accepted, a person subject to a travel restriction order would be able to apply to have that order lifted the day that it took effect, which would clearly be nonsense. In deciding whether to grant applications for revocation, the court will need to be able to consider the range of circumstances set out in subsection (4), including the conduct of the offender since the making of the order. Such a judgment can be made only after a passage of time as, by definition, taking account of that conduct—since release from prison, for example—depends on there being such a passage of time. 
 The amendment would give the court an incomplete picture on which to consider any application for revocation and weaken the effect of the clauses, so I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton will consider withdrawing it.

Jackie Ballard: I anticipated the Minister's argument on amendment No. 164, and I am convinced by his argument on amendment No. 163, but not on amendments Nos. 165 and 166. I do not know what sort of school he attended but, having been a teacher as well as a pupil, I know that it is common for people to invent a host of sick relatives who prevented them from doing their homework or attending school.

Charles Clarke: In my school there was plenty of creativity in those areas, too, but people did not invent sick relatives in other countries.

Jackie Ballard: I hope that the Minister will forgive my saying so, but there was probably less travel between European countries than there is now. I am not suggesting, of course, that he was at school so very long ago.
 I am not convinced that it is more difficult to invent a sick relative than a work-related reason to go abroad. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Intimidation of witnesses

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: The official Opposition have pressed for the introduction of new powers in law to prevent intimidation or threats of witnesses in previous legislation. We welcome the fact that the Government have introduced such a provision here, and we do not intend to block it. However, I was personally involved in some debates on other Bills in which we called for such measures and said that an early opportunity should be found to bring forward legislation. We are pleased that the Government have responded.
 The provisions are, sadly, necessary at this point in time. That was reinforced for me during a visit in a neighbouring constituency with one of the Minister's colleagues—the Solicitor-General. He was making an official visit to the Crown Prosecution Service for the south-east, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I was visiting as a neighbouring Member and a shadow Minister. Both the Solicitor-General and I were surprised to hear that a notorious family of criminals from another area had not only been threatening witnesses but issuing personal threats and taking action against a senior prosecutor. I would not want to exacerbate the problem by drawing attention to the people concerned, but it was happening to someone involved in the administration of justice at a senior level, who suffered serious fears about what was being threatened against him and members of his family. If people involved in the administration of justice can be subject to attempts by serious criminals to exercise such intimidation, how much more necessary is it to protect witnesses and potential witnesses? We fear greatly that we may have to return to the matter and consider yet stronger powers than the Government are introducing in this and the subsequent two related clauses. Although we welcome the fact that action is being taken in response to calls that the Opposition have made for some time, it may be necessary to go even further. However, we do not want to delay the Bill's passage by tabling amendments, as it is worth seeing how the protections that it will introduce will operate.

Jackie Ballard: I do not want to take up too much time. The clause relates to the intimidation and protection of witnesses. A lot of progress has been made on the treatment of victims and on recognition that they need to be kept informed at every stage of the process. However, there is not yet enough understanding of how witnesses feel. Many people are reluctant to come forward as witnesses, especially in relation to serious crime. Even if the crime is less serious, potential witnesses might not want the hassle of going to court.

David Lock: I do not know whether it will affect the hon. Lady's remarks if I point out that the clause relates primarily to witnesses in civil cases and the small category of criminal cases that are not provided for under section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It is designed for someone who would be a potential witness in a domestic violence or antisocial behaviour case, rather than one relating to a serious crime.

Jackie Ballard: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. He spotted that I was taking the opportunity to say something more general.

David Lock: He is very clever.

Jackie Ballard: Yes, he is too clever for me. I will not develop the point that I was going to make.
 As hon. Members will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has a special interest in criminal matters. However, he wanted me to make a couple of points on his behalf in this context. What steps are being taken or are envisaged to encourage witnesses to come forward in future? His second point might relate more to criminal proceedings, but not necessarily exclusively. It concerns the ability of witnesses to be moved before the trial takes place. He says that the current system is a complete lottery and depends partly on how well local authorities co-operate. He suggests that witnesses could be moved to a network of addresses or accommodation. I can imagine all sorts of practical difficulties in that, but I would be grateful if the Minister were to tell us the Government's thinking on the matter.

David Lock: As I mentioned, the clause relates to new powers to provide similar protection for witnesses in civil cases and other categories of criminal cases as is currently provided under section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act provides for protection of witnesses purely in criminal cases.
 The hon. Lady asked what is being done to encourage witnesses. I assure her that the Government are committed to encouraging witnesses. She might be interested to know that we are currently rolling out an additional programme to make Victim Support available at all 413 magistrates courts following an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in February 1999. I had the pleasure of visiting the Birmingham magistrates court Victim Support service on Monday. It provides an excellent service. Victim Support is well recognised in Crown courts and now operates in magistrates courts as well. We look forward to the rolling out of that programme during the next two years. Support will also be provided for witnesses in civil cases in the magistrates court, notably in family cases in which, I am afraid, there is as much intimidation of witnesses as in many criminal cases. 
 The hon. Lady also referred to the moving of witnesses' accommodation prior to trial. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was extremely brave and prepared to go public in his support for witnesses in a recent case. He received commendations from across the political spectrum for the stance that he took. 
 The hon. Member for Taunton is right in that if Whitehall imposed a ``one size fits all'' system, it would cause enormous administrative inconvenience. I assure her that I shall pass her observations to the Home Office, which is co-ordinating the Government's approach to support witnesses, and ensure that they are taken into consideration before any decisions are taken. I commend the clause to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Extension to older children

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: We referred earlier to the problems faced by those at the sharp end—police constables and sergeants. There are particular worries about the Government's failure so far to introduce an effective curfew regime. When Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, was asked recently what he thought about curfews and the Government's proposals, and whether he had the numbers to enforce the curfews, he said:
 ``No, we have not...We have insufficient people patrolling and don't have the people with time to devote to this particular problem...At the moment, the current law applies to the under-10s. Whilst there are some out-of control nine-year olds, and we do encounter nine-year-olds who are burgling at night, causing major problems in their community, intimidating people, committing damage and being generally unruly, the larger, problematic group is the under 16s.'' 
That is obviously why the Government are talking about older age groups. Fred Broughton said that that was originally the Police Federation's suggestion, but that the Government rejected it. They have now learnt some sense as a result of their existing law being unworkable. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I both told the Government that that would not work when they came up with their original proposals. 
 Fred Broughton went on to say: 
 ``But a larger group will require more police resources. Curfews are also highly bureaucratic and forces have been telling me they can't break through the bureaucracy to implement them in the first place.'' 
The Government may have learnt a lesson in terms of the age group and realised that we and the Police Federation were right when we objected to the original proposals. However, they have not learnt a lesson about bureaucracy. It may help the Committee if I say that, although we will certainly return to this subject on Report, I shall not invite my hon. Friends to vote against clause 43, but I shall invite them to vote against clause 44 because that is entirely over-bureaucratic.

Oliver Heald: It is bad enough being bureaucratic by introducing a proposal that would not work in respect of local authorities. If the Government want to extend the age, so be it, but to impose such bureaucracy on the police would be wrong.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right. What he said reinforces how misleading the Government's spin has been on the matter, as it has been on so many other subjects. In March 1999, the Home Secretary told the Association of Local Government and the Metropolitan police that the Government's original proposals for child curfews would
``serve the dual purpose of protecting the community and young children.'' 
The proposals have patently failed and the Police Federation are reporting from forces thoughout the country that they have failed. 
 In June 1996, when Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister told the national press that child curfews were ``eminently sensible'' and that they would tackle 
``young children wandering the streets at night, getting into trouble, growing into a life of criminality.'' 
He went round the country making such statements. However, when the Labour party came into power, it produced something that was bureaucratic and unworkable. Unfortunately, it has not learnt its lesson. I do not want to take up much time of the Committee. I just wanted to raise a matter of general principle. While we do not oppose the clause, we think that the Government are not learning lessons from the failure of their policies. While we shall return to the matter on Report, we will definitely formally reject the following clause.

Adrian Bailey: Given the level of opposition and the derision that the clause received on Second Reading, I was surprised that no amendments had been tabled to it. Opposition Members have made their position clear to a certain extent, although I am not sure that it is consistent.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this clause and clause 44 build on the foundation of failure? What is the purpose of trying to amend such a failure?

Adrian Bailey: Supposedly building on the foundation of failure, I find it odd that the Opposition do not intend to oppose clause 43.
 Uniquely among the members of the Committee, I am still a serving councillor and have been so for the past eight years. During that time, I have seen the great majority of complaints at my surgeries and the telephone calls to my home change from issues related mainly to housing to issues relating to youth behaviour and neighbourhood problems with which the clause deals.

Nick Hawkins: That is the Labour Government for you.

Adrian Bailey: No, the past eight years since 1991. I appreciate that Opposition Members have not had the benefit of the literacy and numeracy hours that were introduced by the Government. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale: Order.

Adrian Bailey: May I continue? Comments have been made about the so-called failure to take any action on the legislation that is based on the 10-year deadline. That is because, while 10-year-olds can be and, indeed, often are involved in group antisocial activity in certain locations, it is rarely solely 10-year-olds. Unless the age limit is extended, the opportunity for the proposals to be effective is limited. Happily, the proposals deal with the problem.
 My experience of complaints is that there are hotspots in certain localities. Sometimes, young people take an exception to groups of elderly persons and find them easy to intimidate and, on occasions, terrorise. Sometimes, the construction of a certain site causes problems. A convenient wall or a specified area within a housing estate may lend itself easily to young people's congregating there. At other times, empty premises can provide a convenient squatting area plus an opportunity to vandalise and pick up materials that can be distributed throughout the area, to the dismay of all the neighbours. Sometimes, the location of shops may be the problem; any shop that stays open at night provides a convenient pool of light in the dark and is a magnet to young people who want a place to congregate. Other members of the public have to make their way through a barrier of young people, which may add an extra intimidatory factor. We want to remove the opportunity for young people to intimidate others in those spots. 
 Previously, complaints have been made to the police, who are often overworked and cannot get to the area in time to deal with the problem. If they manage to turn up, it is difficult for them to discover the main perpetrators and distinguish between them and the hangers on. They are also limited in their powers to move groups on. Groups can be intimidatory simply by virtue of being a group; they may not be engaged in anything identifiably antisocial. Elderly people are intimidated by large groups of young people in closely defined locations. 
 When the police are unable to do anything, they may pass the buck to the local authority, which may then say that it is really a matter for the police. That means that no action can be taken, to the increasing frustration of local residents.

Jackie Ballard: I am worried by the implication of the hon. Gentleman's comments. He seems to mean that, because the police cannot deal with the problem of young people in numbers who intimidate other people in the community, a geographical blanket curfew should be enforced. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that is an appropriate response to the situation that he has described?

Adrian Bailey: No. I am saying that this legislation may be appropriate for dealing with identifiable hotspots.
 As for the alleged bureaucracy, it was implicit in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that local authorities, the police and the community had to work in tandem. The legislation will not be successful unless those parties work together. The police and local authorities are unlikely to respond unless there is a problem in an area, defined by the complaints made by local people. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Adrian Bailey: I shall curtail my remarks, because we do not have injury time in Committee. Most local authorities and police forces have well-established mechanisms by which particular processes may be determined without any increase in bureaucracy. The Government's funding policies mean that police numbers are rising—they are certainly rising in the West Midlands force—so I do not anticipate the strain on police manpower that concerns Opposition Members.

Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman asked why the child curfew order clauses received such derisory opposition on Second Reading—only one amendment was tabled. The Liberal Democrats are fundamentally opposed to both clauses and would have considered an amendment to remove them, which would have been unacceptable. I want a vote on clause 43, which I shall vote against. I will also vote against clause 44 if there is a Division.
 We opposed the imposition of the original child curfew orders for under-10s and—along with other members of the Committee—we are unaware of any occasions on which they have been used. We were concerned by the wide-ranging nature of the powers. Those concerns are increased by the proposals to extend the orders to age 16 and to allow their imposition by a chief of police acting alone, rather than by a local authority. In terms of civil liberties, the extension to age 16 is far worse. Although most reasonable people would argue that a 10-year-old should not be out on the streets after 9 o'clock in almost any circumstances, it is clearly unreasonable to argue that a 15 or 16-year-old should not. 
 Our major concern is that child curfew orders target geographical areas with blanket bans on the activities of young people instead of on individuals who are causing problems. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) that the police may find it difficult to identify the perpetrator. That is not an excuse to blame everyone. 
 We expressed concern about the impact of the Human Rights Act on the previous legislation, and whether it was compliant. I suspect that no orders have been applied for because local authorities have felt unable to show that such orders would be a proportionate response to a problem or necessary in a democratic society. I also suspect that the Minister will refer to Scotland and the Strathclyde scheme, because that has been prayed in aid when the matter has been discussed in the House. However, there is a fundamental difference because, in Scotland, curfew orders are not imposed in isolation but are part of a wider scheme that includes investment and activities for young people so that there is less motivation and need for them to hang about on street corners causing trouble. 
 We are worried about the practical effect of blanket curfew orders. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred to police availability and time. If the police are available to enforce sanctions and curfew orders, surely they would be available to deal effectively with young people who are breaking the law. Imposing a blanket curfew order could prevent innocent young people who are out on legitimate business from entering the curfew area. They may stray into a curfew area unknowingly, because they could not be expected to know what part of a city or town is subject to a curfew. If they were aware of it, they might decide to go home by a different route, which could be less familiar and perhaps more dangerous. 
 I strongly believe, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, that strategies should be encouraged to allow the police and local authorities to deal with individual young people who cause problems, but not to cover a whole area and to add to the bad name that teenagers are often given. I am distressed if elderly people feel intimidated by the presence of teenagers, but that is not a reason to lock up those teenagers if they are doing nothing wrong. 
 I recall, in the dim and distant past when I was a teenager, that teenagers enjoyed just hanging about. I enjoyed hanging about on the steps of the cenotaph in the middle of the small town where I lived just to see who else was hanging about. Hon. Members will remember that hormones are rampant during teenage years and teenagers are often interested in seeing which members of the gender to which they happen to be attracted are hanging about at the same time. For many teenagers, that is the main purpose of hanging about, and I should hate us to be killjoys and decide that that is not a legitimate activity for teenagers. 
 A blanket curfew order on a geographical area because some teenagers have been causing a problem is similar to keeping the whole class in after school because one or two pupils have misbehaved. I want to press the amendment to a vote. I may be on my own on this, but that does not mean that I am wrong.

Charles Clarke: I shall be brief because our time has been curtailed by the Division. This debate is more political than some of our previous debates and I want to deal quickly with the main points.
 My very good friend, Fred Broughton, has never, to my knowledge, said that there were too many police officers in Britain. Whenever an issue arises, he and the Police Federation reasonably say that they need more police officers. I shall not rehearse the debate and the fact that police numbers are rising for the first time since 1993--between a third and a half of forces already have more police officers than in March 1997, and that process will continue--because that is not relevant to this debate. 
 On the impact of the curfew, I want to emphasise that a two-pronged approach is required to deal with youth disorder. One prong is a range of activities, such as the youth improvement programmes under the youth justice scheme, out-of-school schemes and genuine activities for young people so that they do not just hang out at cenotaphs and so on. The other is an exceptional range of sanctions that can be applied to young people who are disorderly in their behaviour and cause misery for other people, because that is not acceptable. 
 The political points made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West were a bit ripe. He put his arguments exceptionally powerfully. I recall visiting him during his election campaign and meeting a group of ethnic minority community leaders in his constituency to discuss various issues. They raised the problems that their communities were experiencing from precisely that type of youth disorder. Labour won the by-election convincingly, even though the Conservatives were expected to do so. The electors of West Bromwich, West are extremely fortunate to have my hon. Friend as their Member. It was because they were concerned about those issues and they believed that the Labour party had policies to deal with them that he was elected in that critical by-election. The political point needs to be understood in that context.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: No.
 The question of sanctions is important in relation to the bureaucracy argument. I saw a most interesting presentation from Chief Inspector Ron Hope, the commander of the Islington borough, with the housing department of Islington Council, about acceptable behaviour contracts under which young people are required to sign up to behave in an acceptable way, with the housing officer, the police, and the parent. The sanction against them is the application of such orders. The existence of the sanction has led to children ranging in age from eight to 19 following the terms of those contracts. That scheme has been running over the past few months and has been extremely effective. It has now been taken up as a standard form of contract with the Metropolitan police. 
 We need sanctions to deal with the situation. It is not a question of building on a foundation of failure. We inherited the ``no such thing as society'' generation from our predecessors and we are seeking to put back the strong communities and strong society that we need. 
 I hope that the official Opposition will put their votes where their mouth is on the clause. We have heard from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and others a great string of weasel words on curfews, and general cynicism and undermining. They are entitled to express themselves in that way, but they should have the courage to vote against the clause and stand with the Liberal Democrats, though for different reasons. The Liberal Democrats' position is based on their view of civil liberties, and I understand that, but the official Opposition should have the courage to vote as they feel. They should stop their mealy-mouthed words and decide that they are either for or against the measure. Let us see where the vote is and what the people think. 
 I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the clause. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:-
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Power for police to make schemes

Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 34, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
 I am surprised that the official Opposition do not have a position on the extension of child curfew orders to teenagers under 16. I have made clear my position and I shall not take up much of the Committee's time in moving the amendment, because we do not want either clause to be in existence. However, accepting that it was likely that clause 43 would be passed, we decided to try to improve clause 44. 
 The idea of the measure is that the public should not be subject to intimidation from large groups of young people, but when the Government talked initially about the provision for under 10-year-olds, they said that child welfare was the key issue. Local authorities were to make child curfew orders, because they have to provide for the education and welfare of children, through social services, youth services and a whole raft of measures that may give young people alternatives to hanging about on street corners. To say, as the clause does, that the police can also have the power to make local child curfew orders, independently of local authorities, which are reduced to the level of consultees, is to move away from any pretence of considering child welfare and into the sphere of criminal sanctions.

Charles Clarke: The amendment would remove the provision that allows the chief officer to apply for a scheme. It is technically defective—although I do not criticise it on that basis—in that it would remove subsection (2), yet subsections (3), (4) and (5) would make no sense without it.
 The Government's position is that partnership is where we ought to be. The police are a front-line service and they must work in partnership with local authorities, which is the central function of the clause. Partnership is a two-way process, which is why the initiating role can be played either by the local authority or by the police. They work in partnership in practice, as is required by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the crime reduction partnerships, which is the right way to proceed. 
 I understand the hon. Lady's general concerns, but I am genuinely surprised that she thinks that it is wrong to give the police as much power as local authorities to initiate action in such circumstances, given the proviso that both are required to work in conjunction with each other in accordance with the 1998 Act and the various partnerships. It is appropriate that both local authorities and the police should be able to initiate action. 
 I hope that the hon. Lady will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. If she decides to press it to a vote, I hope that the official Opposition will have the guts to vote as they should.

Jackie Ballard: If the clause was about genuine partnership, it would have said that the chief of police should consult the local authority and then, if they are both in agreement, either can initiate the procedure. As it stands, if the chief of police consults the local authority and it says, ``No, we think there are better ways of dealing with the problem'', he can go ahead anyway. The clause would permit that state of affairs, which would be a bad example of partnership.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I entirely reject both what the Minister said in the previous debate about the official Opposition's position and his completely specious assertion that police numbers are going up. He appears to believe that, just because the Home Secretary says that provision will be made for recruiting more police, more will automatically be conjured up. In most areas, the numbers recruited have so far not made up the shortfall caused by the collapse in police morale that those in the Police Federation and others repeatedly comment on, which, as the Minister knows perfectly well, is the direct result of Labour Government policy. Consequently, in areas such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate—

David Lock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: No, I will not. There is little time, and I want to reinforce the fact that our position on child curfews is absolutely clear.
 I said at the outset of the debate on clause 43 that I intended to invite my hon. Friends to vote with me against clause 44, because the mischief lies in the bureaucracy. The Minister cannot claim that the original Labour legislation was a success—we know that child curfews have failed, because there have not been any. The legislation was wrong, as we pointed out at the time. To echo the words of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West, we treated the matter with derision because it was such a catastrophic failure. The Minister should apologise to the Committee and to the nation for introducing a completely unworkable policy. 
 The Minister dismisses Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, as—allegedly—a friend of his who only ever calls for more police. The quotation from him that I read out went much further than that: he said that the measure that the Government introduced is completely unworkable. We know that, because it has not been used. This bureaucracy will be equally unworkable, which is why we reject the clause and will vote against it.

Crispin Blunt: I share my hon. Friend's displeasure at the Minister's remarks about our attitude to the stand part debate on clause 43.
 There have been no child curfew orders on children under the age of 10, and the scheme that the Government introduced in the 1998 Act was wholly unworkable. It is a question of judgment as to whether extending it to the age of 16 would make it more workable. I may not want to support the Government directly or oppose the extension of the schemes, and I do not believe that the Government should attack me for taking such a view on the measure. They should allow me to express my neutrality. I am also extremely suspicious when the Government are determinedly anxious that we should take a view one way or the other. If we were to support the proposal, and the practical merits of extending it to 16 are that it works in as non-existent a fashion as it worked up to 10, we would be lined up as supporting the Government's measures. If we were to oppose it, and it did not work in exactly the same way as it worked for those under 10, the Government would no doubt use their spin machine to misrepresent the Opposition, who, as Conservatives, have always wanted to support good order, proper public behaviour and responsibility. If the measures were going to deliver that, we would support them. However, there are serious questions about their practicality, which is why I believe that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. 
 To address the clause directly, the provision has come into disrepute because local authorities have not found any occasion on which to make it work, although they might be able to make it work if the age range is extended to 16. I suspect that the Government's motivation is that they want to widen the ability of the police as well as local authorities to make such orders, so that they can at least say that some orders have been introduced. Currently, the provision is falling into disrepute because not a single order has been introduced. 
 The police have enough to do without being burdened by such provisions. The decision as to which authority should implement the provision should be straightforward. It should be one or the other. On the basis of conversations that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West had with people whom he represented as a councillor, the greater weight of concern is about child misbehaviour. As a member of a local authority, he would have been able to make those representations. At least it would be clear if it were solely local authorities' responsibility to initiate such orders. The Government were therefore probably correct when they attempted to introduce the measure for the first time in the 1998 Act. The fact that the age was 10 meant that the provision has not worked at all in practice. Raising the age to 16 at least gives it a chance to be applied. 
 It is wrong to introduce the police into the process. If the police want to initiate such matters, I am sure that they would be able to approach the local authority to invite them to do so. It should be the proper democratic responsibility of the local authority to make the orders as they see fit. That should be part of the new relationship that police and local authorities are trying to establish. Police boundaries have, in many instances, been aligned directly with those of local authorities. That has happened in my county of Surrey, and the Metropolitan police has reorganised itself to align with borough boundaries. That process should be happening; the police should be capable of talking to local authorities. Since the Labour party has become a rather more respectable institution and one rather more interested in law and order issues—that is, compared to the state that it was in during the 1980s. It is merely more respectable than it was; I did not say that it was respectable.

Nick Hawkins: I think that what my hon. Friend intended to say was that the Labour party may superficially be pretending to be more respectable. Does he agree that the most interesting thing to come out of this debate was the hon. Member for Taunton pointing out that the most wonderful training for becoming a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament was hanging around on the streets doing little of any use?

Crispin Blunt: I note what my hon. Friend says in respect of the hon. Member for Taunton.
 My point is that most local authorities, under whichever political control, are now rather more likely to talk to the police. Some Labour councils have been deeply antipathetic to people in uniform, notably the armed services, and have not allowed the armed services to attend recruiting fairs in schools, for example. However, by and large, there is now much greater co-operation between local authorities and the police, which is why I oppose the police being given the powers, because in most circumstances if the police consider that there is a problem they will be able to talk to their local authorities and invite them to initiate the powers. The extension introduced by the clause is unnecessary; that is why I oppose it.

Simon Hughes: I apologise because, as I anticipated, I could not be here for the beginning of the debate. Although I have not yet read the transcript, I share the views that I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton expressed in my absence. Child curfew schemes should not be extended as proposed, and although the Committee has now agreed to that extension, they should certainly not be issued at the behest of the police rather than the democratic local authority, as the hon. Member for Reigate said. If the police cannot persuade the local authority, they have a pretty thin case. The local authority has local democratic accountability in a way that the police do not. Those who are elected can be dealt with accordingly by the electorate.
 In her defence, may I say that I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton never hung around without clear purpose—[Laughter]—and, because she briefed me specifically on this point, she believes, as do I, that it may be rather good preparation for people, before they become Members of Parliament, to hang around occasionally to see what really happens on the street, rather than hiding themselves away in places where they do not have as much contact with reality. 
 I have been party to all the arguments about what happened in Strathclyde and elsewhere in Scotland. In my constituency, where, as everywhere else, the issue is live, all my conversations with the Metropolitan police, from the most senior to the most junior level, have confirmed that it did not seek the power and does not anticipate that it would need or use it. To borrow from what the Home Secretary said last week, the police want to concentrate on the criminal, the offender, rather than on the generality of the area or neighbourhood. 
 It will do no good to communities with high crime to be singled out as areas in which curfews are in place. That will reduce property prices and only attract more trouble and difficulty. I expect that, as with junior curfew orders, they will probably never happen; if they do, it will probably be for a short time. The police want to get on with dealing with the troublemakers; those who are lawfully going about their business should be allowed to do so, whether they are under or over 16. It is going down the wrong road in the wrong direction to be thinking of curfews for teenagers on their way to adulthood. That is another worrying example of the illiberal tendency that too often reasserts itself at the heart of the Government.

Charles Clarke: I have argued the points already and I do not want to add anything to them. I urge the Committee to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that under the sittings motion, business would normally terminate automatically at Five o'clock. However, in the interests of tidiness and completeness, I will accept the motion. The Committee will sit again at 10.30 on Tuesday morning with Mr. Hood in the Chair. I trust that those members of the Committee heading north will find more clement weather than during the past week, and I am sure that all of our good wishes go with the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), given the traumatic circumstances that his constituents have faced this week. I wish all the Committee a peaceful and productive weekend.
 Question put and agreed to. 
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 6 March at half-past Ten o'clock.